I've repeated many times that 'liking it' is the best reason to buy something. And pretty much one of 2 reasons to buy an EV. I don't begrudge someone wanting to buy one. But price-competitive, they ain't.

What I don't get is that you seem to have some separate measure of "value" that isn't about how much people are willing to pay for things, which is the only useful definition of value. What are your secret objective criteria that allows you to make such determinations?

I apologize for all my previous posts. I revise my comments to "The MSRP on an EV is significantly higher than a comparable gasoline car." Price is only one component in choosing a car, and not one I much look at, so I understand why people buy these things.

But given that no-one in this thread has bothered to pipe up about their ownership experience of any EV, I'll take it that they aren't exactly flying off the shelves.

I'm tempted to start a Leaf thread, and everyone can go debate the merits of cheap-ass cars there. And then we can discuss the Model S and what it competes against here. Because I'd much rather argue about how much you *really* want to have an EV for green street cred to buy a Model S over anything else at the price they are selling for. Though I guess outside the Bay Area, they might be rare enough for people to like them for that reason.

So, any takers from anyone that might actually buy a Model S? So we can argue about why that instead of it's competitors?

So, any takers from anyone that might actually buy a Model S? So we can argue about why that instead of it's competitors?

I'll play.

First, it really doesn't *have* many competitors.

Second, as an EV, it has an insane torque curve, silent operation, a lower CoG, and means I won't be stopping at the gas station any more.

Third, rarity is nice. I don't live in the Bay Area, and I've not seen a Tesla anywhere around here yet. Turning heads with a rare care is always fun.

Fourth, looks. IMO, the Tesla is just drop dead sexy as a vehicle.

Fifth, size. From what I've read, this thing is a true mid-size luxury sport sedan. I've sat in the Leaf, and it was less than pleasing ergonomically. I've also test driven a CTS-V (sedan, not Sport Wagon, but I wanted the sport wagon)...and for the sheer grin-factor, I would have bought one...but it really was too small inside for me to ever truly be comfortable. When the ATS-V comes out, I'll also be taking a look at that.

Finally, purchases like this have *never* been about cost-efficiency, equivalency, or anything else like that. This is a luxury vehicle purchase...and it's based largely on subjective value. This is why every major car manufacturer has an up-market label equivalent, based almost entirely on their mid-market platforms. Toyota/Lexus, Honda/Acura, Nissan/Infinity, etc. People pay more for nice things that are largely otherwise equivalent. The Tesla is different in almost every perceivable way from the extant competition...and thus has a significant market differentiator.

True, there aren't many cars for sale in the US in that range. Mostly the big Germans.

Quote:

Second, as an EV, it has an insane torque curve, silent operation, a lower CoG, and means I won't be stopping at the gas station any more.

Torque is fun! Seems regulators or the manufacturers want to ruin the fun of EV's and have them purposefully make noise or something. The silence is pretty cool. (until you start getting lots of tire noise, if you have decent tires)

Quote:

Third, rarity is nice. I don't live in the Bay Area, and I've not seen a Tesla anywhere around here yet. Turning heads with a rare care is always fun.

Even here, the Model S (and the Roadster still, even though they're everywhere) carry a lot of geek cred here, and I'm sure the owners get a lot of attention and questions. I know what that is like, so I'm going for something else in my next car.

Quote:

Fourth, looks. IMO, the Tesla is just drop dead sexy as a vehicle.

Have you seen on in person? The outside is pretty good (though pretty large), but I am not sold at all on the interior. I think they have the right idea with their buying experience too. Wonder what they give for loaners when you go in for service...

Quote:

Fifth, size. From what I've read, this thing is a true mid-size luxury sport sedan. I've sat in the Leaf, and it was less than pleasing ergonomically. I've also test driven a CTS-V (sedan, not Sport Wagon, but I wanted the sport wagon)...and for the sheer grin-factor, I would have bought one...but it really was too small inside for me to ever truly be comfortable. When the ATS-V comes out, I'll also be taking a look at that.

One big plus vs. the other cars for you is that you wont lose power at altitude, like you would with the CTS-V. If you were in the market for something up there, I'd also suggest looking at the new S6 or S7, but then again I'm a badge whore.

Quote:

Finally, purchases like this have *never* been about cost-efficiency, equivalency, or anything else like that. This is a luxury vehicle purchase...and it's based largely on subjective value. This is why every major car manufacturer has an up-market label equivalent, based almost entirely on their mid-market platforms. Toyota/Lexus, Honda/Acura, Nissan/Infinity, etc. People pay more for nice things that are largely otherwise equivalent. The Tesla is different in almost every perceivable way from the extant competition...and thus has a significant market differentiator.

Any expensive car is pretty much a purchase based on whichever car pushes your buttons. Because no-one really needs a $100k passenger vehicle (unless you need an armored one ), but damn are they fun! I look forward to my next car not having the electronics from 2005.

I can't pull up the link at the moment, but on Autoblog.com today there's a video of it drag racing against a BMW M5. The Tesla S wins in both the 1/4 mile and from 0-100.

That's inline with the published numbers, at least for a manual M5 and no LC. Though mag tests show the M5 with a better ET and trap speed. A DCT M5 would've probably killed the Model S, but be far worse for getting eyeballs to read the article. Not that I mind seeing a F10 M5 get beat, but with LC it'd be no contest. (since we'd be talking about sub 4sec 0-60, and 12 flat 1/4 @122, and any idiot can do it)

And trap speed for the Model S was ~108? I would've expected a lot more. I guess it's all torque down low.

Still, a good showing. Hopefully Model S owners will watch and go out and try to replicate, for hilarious results.

Actually, though, I hadn't even *thought* of the benefits of EV over ICE at altitude...good one.

Having lived at ~5800 ft and regularly had vehicles at 10k+ ft, the power loss at altitude is significant, and very noticeable. It's not one of those "Oh, yeah, you lose a bit of power but you don't notice it" things - it's "What the f*** is wrong with my engine?" type power reductions at 11k ft on a summer day.

This is a reason why I am glad turbos are getting popular. No more power loss at altitude...

Serious question, what's the critical altitude of a typical car turbo setup? I would imagine fairly low - excess capacity ~= heavier turbo ~= more lag. And when you start pushing them out of their performance envelope, you get much more heating going on with the intake air. So while I agree they're certainly better than an NA engine, I don't know what issues you'd have at altitude WRT intake temperature/etc.

Actually, though, I hadn't even *thought* of the benefits of EV over ICE at altitude...good one.

Having lived at ~5800 ft and regularly had vehicles at 10k+ ft, the power loss at altitude is significant, and very noticeable. It's not one of those "Oh, yeah, you lose a bit of power but you don't notice it" things - it's "What the f*** is wrong with my engine?" type power reductions at 11k ft on a summer day.

I currently live at 5500 feet, and have lived at 9000, and regularly drive up and beyond 11000. I'm aware of the problems, but it really is dependent on your engine (more modern engine management and EFI compensate quite a bit, and FI essentially eliminates the issue completely.)

Quote:

Serious question, what's the critical altitude of a typical car turbo setup? I would imagine fairly low - excess capacity ~= heavier turbo ~= more lag. And when you start pushing them out of their performance envelope, you get much more heating going on with the intake air. So while I agree they're certainly better than an NA engine, I don't know what issues you'd have at altitude WRT intake temperature/etc.

As long as you've got sufficient exhaust flow to spin your turbo up to operating speed, you're going to be able to maximize boost to set limits. A good turbo setup will have zero issues cruising at highway speeds at altitude...the power will be there when you need it. (I can keep my Optima churning at 85+ up to the Eisenhower tunnel without breaking a sweat. It would go as fast as I asked it to...but I don't push it because of traffic and cops up there)

Having lived at ~5800 ft and regularly had vehicles at 10k+ ft, the power loss at altitude is significant, and very noticeable. It's not one of those "Oh, yeah, you lose a bit of power but you don't notice it" things - it's "What the f*** is wrong with my engine?" type power reductions at 11k ft on a summer day.

You knew this anyway. Density altitude is a bitch.

Quote:

I'm aware of the problems, but it really is dependent on your engine (more modern engine management and EFI compensate quite a bit, and FI essentially eliminates the issue completely.)

Uh, no. It does not. Not even remotely. Less 02 in will result in less fuel being injected, which will result in less power. Fuel Injection has nothing at all to do with it, unless you have some magic, 'laws of physics violating' FI. And considering 50% of the atmosphere by mass exists below 18k', being up at 10k' is a significant hit to performance.

The only way "it really is dependent on your engine" is if you have metric assloads of excess power to start with and you don't notice that 50% of it has gone away.

Turbos sidestep this issue by essentially feeding the engine sea-level pressure air until the altitude overwhelms their ability to compensate.

There's a difference between a general understanding of density altitude and "The Cessna climbs slower at 7k ft than at 2k ft" in Iowa, when I seldom bothered with anything above 5k ft MSL, and driving a car up a mountain going "GO!!!" - mostly because I'd never had to deal with density altitude in a car before.

Quote:

Turbos sidestep this issue by essentially feeding the engine sea-level pressure air until the altitude overwhelms their ability to compensate.

Right - just was curious as to the critical altitude for a modern car turbo setup.

There's a difference between a general understanding of density altitude and "The Cessna climbs slower at 7k ft than at 2k ft" in Iowa, when I seldom bothered with anything above 5k ft MSL, and driving a car up a mountain going "GO!!!" - mostly because I'd never had to deal with density altitude in a car before.

True, though I'd assume there was somewhat less of a shock when experiencing it firsthand. At least you had some academic knowledge of the theory before being smacked in the face with it first-hand.

I primary flew out of Daytona (a.k.a - "sea level"), and the difference between "single engine performance is +600 fpm" and "The working engine will fly you all the way to the crash site" in the Seminole was a function of "is it January, or July?" when computing single engine performance. The Arrow on the other hand... Fuel + 2 people just meant varying degrees of suck for performance depending on the month. Both somewhat scare me thinking of departing someplace like Denver on a hot day.

Quote:

Right - just was curious as to the critical altitude for a modern car turbo setup.

Agreed (the comment was more for Frennzy than you, since I know you have a sense of it already). I'm curious as well, but given that weight is not really a factor and turbos tend to provide a significant margin anyway, my gut feeling is that "it doesn't matter" for a ground vehicle. In practical terms as a W.A.G. I'd expect at least 10k-13k feet, which the vast majority of the population would be hard pressed to hit on a regular basis in the US. In short, for ground vehicles I suspect the effective answer is "there isn't one."

All of that aside, the point of the altitude independence of an EV is a significant one, even if it's not something that most people would ever consider.

The short answer is that stock programming for turbo cars is pretty conservative, so they have quite a bit of headroom left. This is why chip tuning is so common, it gives you an instant torque jump in the lower rev range.

At high RPMs the small turbos use will be way out of their efficiency range, but there's usually still gains. Small turbos are used to limit lag and help with drivability.

The short answer is that stock programming for turbo cars is pretty conservative, so they have quite a bit of headroom left. This is why chip tuning is so common, it gives you an instant torque jump in the lower rev range.

Weeellll.... Any "conservatism" is there to protect the customer in the case they put 87 octane in their car. Detonation is an engine killer. Tuners don't have to worry about warranties or anything, they can say "you need to use 91/93 octane and you flash this tune at your own risk." I wouldn't say they're "pretty conservative," I'd say they're "mildly conservative." If you're willing to seek out 100 or 105 octane, all bets are off.

Quote:

At high RPMs the small turbos use will be way out of their efficiency range, but there's usually still gains. Small turbos are used to limit lag and help with drivability.

The short answer is that stock programming for turbo cars is pretty conservative, so they have quite a bit of headroom left. This is why chip tuning is so common, it gives you an instant torque jump in the lower rev range.

Weeellll.... Any "conservatism" is there to protect the customer in the case they put 87 octane in their car. Detonation is an engine killer. Tuners don't have to worry about warranties or anything, they can say "you need to use 91/93 octane and you flash this tune at your own risk." I wouldn't say they're "pretty conservative," I'd say they're "mildly conservative." If you're willing to seek out 100 or 105 octane, all bets are off.

Agreed. I am used to engines that ride the knock sensors all the time, even with stock programming though. And they are really sensitive, enough that extra noise causes a timing pull. The software changes generally used by the Audi/VW crowd are mostly remaps, with no changes to the safety measures. Engine tunes are often marketing driven.

Folks aren't really going with manual boost controllers and hoping for the best...

I've lurked around what seems like forever, but this thread and its crapstorm have intrigued and amused me.

I currently own a new and paid-off 2010 Honda Insight, the hybrid with regen braking and such, mainly because I loved the original when I first saw it in '01-'02 and I love this one even more. I haven't had any problems with it apart from the battery dying while I was off in the desert for a third of the year, and that was covered under warranty anyway. I usually get between 42 and 46 mpg on my 12mi commute to work, depending on how aggressively I drive.

I have a mortgage I'm trying to pay off in extremely short order, so I'm not exactly in the market for a luxury car like this, but I'd agree that it's absolutely gorgeous. Had I the money to blow on it, I'd happily grab one - at least, from everything I've seen and read so far. I'd really like to get into one to try it, though, because everyone has their own idea of what feels the best in a driving experience.

Having not followed EVs very closely, I find the technology absolutely fascinating and would love to get my hands on it. I've already considered installing some PV stuff on my roof, to offset power use costs (of anything, not necessarily an EV) but perhaps more importantly to have my own power source that isn't dependent on the town grid. Renewable power - energy that is literally free (not including PV/infrastructure maintenance) and doesn't shortfall anyone else - is something I find quite desirable, and to be able to use it for personal transport is even more so.

Honestly I don't have anything significant to add to the discussion, other than to say that for myself and anyone else who lives in town, a car like this - or a less-powered one, admittedly - would suit our driving patterns *perfectly* (it's not like my car gets used at night, when I'd charge it for a couple hours to restore energy used during the day). And less moving parts to get fouled up, too? Yeah, the less I have to worry about the better. If it wasn't so expensive, I'd have it *now*.

By the time I'm ready for another car (and Hondas seem pretty reliable overall, so... 5-10 years maybe?), I'll be looking pretty closely at EVs. I imagine they'll be cheaper and more reliable at that point, but I'm glad something this cool and *functional* exists *now* so that said point can actually be reached in the near future.

Edit: the touch panel in the stack does worry me, but again, I'd have to get my hands on it to know for sure. Has anyone here been able to test-drive one yet?

At the Cleantech Investor Summit in Palm Springs, California, yesterday, Musk told a crowd that Tesla would be unveiling their own electric SUV—the Model X—later this year (the company is also the powertrain and battery supplier for the upcoming 2nd generation Toyota RAV4 EV due out in 2012). As a bit of icing on the talk cake, Musk also said that they were on track to sell a $30,000 Tesla vehicle within four years.

Four years, plus say a year or two (as the customer) to let them get any initial issues out of the way, plus however long the actual release might be delayed due to various circumstances. Still talk at this point, but attractive talk.

Edit: the touch panel in the stack does worry me, but again, I'd have to get my hands on it to know for sure. Has anyone here been able to test-drive one yet?

Not yet, but I expect a car guy is going to get one of the ones here eventually, and I should be able to get them to let me drive it. Usually I can arrange to met an owner of some fun car, and we agree to drive each other's car.

M. Jones wrote:

Good luck. Cars attract mostly men and boys. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Interest from women is largely confined to the cost of the car and whether it contains a celebrity.

My wife shakes her head in disbelief when anyone fawns over my car, as she doesn't understand why people care.

At the Cleantech Investor Summit in Palm Springs, California, yesterday, Musk told a crowd that Tesla would be unveiling their own electric SUV—the Model X—later this year (the company is also the powertrain and battery supplier for the upcoming 2nd generation Toyota RAV4 EV due out in 2012). As a bit of icing on the talk cake, Musk also said that they were on track to sell a $30,000 Tesla vehicle within four years.

Four years, plus say a year or two (as the customer) to let them get any initial issues out of the way, plus however long the actual release might be delayed due to various circumstances. Still talk at this point, but attractive talk.

I drove one (a non-performance model) on the Get Amped tour. There are plenty of test drive videos on youtube if you search for 'tesla get amped'. That drive got reservation money out of me. I had no intention of reserving one until I drove it. I'll likely be getting the least expensive 40kWh version. Probably my number will come up in April-May. I can't wait.

Driving an EV is unlike any other car you've driven. The silence, the whoosh forwards. It's unreal. And no CO2; with plenty of storage space. No more combustion engines for me. After driving the Model S, ICEs are an anachronism.

Well, let's be honest...you just mean no CO2 at the point of energy consumption. Electricity still creates a boatload of CO2 at the generation point (though it is easier to capture than the distributed release model of ICEs)

Well, let's be honest...you just mean no CO2 at the point of energy consumption. Electricity still creates a boatload of CO2 at the generation point (though it is easier to capture than the distributed release model of ICEs)

Depends on where you live.

Seattle gets a lot of power from hydro, I believe most of AZ is nuclear, etc.

Well, let's be honest...you just mean no CO2 at the point of energy consumption. Electricity still creates a boatload of CO2 at the generation point (though it is easier to capture than the distributed release model of ICEs)

Depends on where you live.

Seattle gets a lot of power from hydro, I believe most of AZ is nuclear, etc.

Well, let's be honest...you just mean no CO2 at the point of energy consumption. Electricity still creates a boatload of CO2 at the generation point (though it is easier to capture than the distributed release model of ICEs)

and this sentiment is solely what rustles my jimmies about this subject. Something that is the dominant technology today and will be for the forseeable future is pretty much the exact opposite of an "anachronism."

and this sentiment is solely what rustles my jimmies about this subject. Something that is the dominant technology today and will be for the forseeable future is pretty much the exact opposite of an "anachronism."

I think the idea was that the difference between them is like future vs. past. Or maybe 'ICEs are obsolete' would be more accurate? Something that's around, still, but is simply too old-fashioned to be taken seriously by anyone but a collector?

I jest, of course, but 'for the forseeable future' implies in this instance that your foreseeing doesn't have much in the way of depth.